h a l f b a k e r yFlaky rehab
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Spell checker is an awesome tool and I can't imagine my life without it. However, there is a different kind of typo that really gets me annoyed. I often spell "you" as "your" and spell checker can never identify this. There are other similar instances but I can't think of any right now. I should
be able input "you" and "your" into the word processor application and have it highlight those words every time I use them. This way I could quickly make fixes when proof reading.
Another word I often misspell is "our" as "out".
The Jabberwocky with spelling "corrected"
http://dynamics.org.../PCJabberwocky.html
A classic reminder of how spell checking can mangle surreal beauty ... [Aristotle, Mar 03 2010]
Alright.
http://dictionary.c...?key=2143&dict=CALD
Alright's alright. [DrBob, Mar 05 2010]
"All Right" vs. "alright"
http://grammar.quic...versus-alright.aspx
The British are always mucking up the language. [jurist, Mar 05 2010]
[link]
|
| |
This and a couple of other recent spell checking variants are asking for something (almost) new. |
|
| |
A traditional spell checker checks each word entered against a "white-list" of valid character combinations. You can swap different dictionaries in and out in order to cater for regional differences, even entire languages. |
|
| |
The general problem being that there are redundancies, non-puns (where a mispelling translates an equally "valid" word, except that now it has a different meaning), grammatical errors (there, their and they're - among others) and other typographical problems. |
|
| |
What's needed is a contextual semantic "proof-reader" - but that's tantamount AI and may be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Microsoft had a grammar checking thing that was kind of going this way, but I've not seen it for a while (probably switched off as default now after annoying too many people - something I wish they'd do to this stupid multi-clipboard thing - I only want one copy/paste thanks!) |
|
| |
Some spell-checkers also look at grammar, with varying degrees of success. Such a programme should be able to have a reasonable stab at working out where you mistakes are ... |
|
| |
@ zen_tom @ Aristotle: I fully understand the complexity in building this kind of tool. We are still a few years away from technology that will fully solve this problem. For the time being, however, it would be nice to have a manual interface where I can say look out for "our", "out", "you" and "your". Someone else might have a completely different list. |
|
| |
Ctl+F will allow you to do this search in most versions of MS Windows |
|
| |
//Spell checker is an awesome tool and I can't imagine my life without it//
Try harder. Spell checker is an awful tool that encourages lazy writing and poor grammar. It is no substitute for learning to write correctly. |
|
| |
//Spell checker is an awful tool that encourages lazy writing and poor grammar// |
|
| |
Then so would be pedantry. |
|
| |
I disagree, however. There is no substitute for the smug feeling I get when I spell check an anno and find no misspelled words. |
|
| |
Usually only happens with the shorter ones, though. |
|
| |
I've been writing some XSD schemas recently, as an alternative to writing a human language parser for transaction-based command statements - and have to say, being able to create my very own, rich yet non-ambiguous grammar, and then have programs pick that up and start doing effective autosuggestions as I write new documents has been really quite an enjoyable experience. Shame nobody has written a great big XSD allowing one to validate "form" for any written English language document. |
|
| |
But I go back to the point, you don't want a "spell checker", you want a "proof reader". |
|
| |
Or (sudden brainwave) say the "white-list" approach tells the spellchecker when to ignore a word (i.e. it passes the dictionary lookup), you could add a second list, the "black-list" containing common mistakes such as "teh", "poeple" - this already exists as "Autocorrect" - but what's new is you could add a third (Grey, Amber?) lookup list containing "watch-out!" words such as the ones you suggest and more of those grammatical ones. All the system has to do is highlight them and guide the user to proof read those sentences containing those suspect words. |
|
| |
[zen_tom] I've seen a system in the 90s with both a white list and a black list, admittedly an internal Xerox system, that was used to checked OCRed European patents. (OCR = Optical Character Recognition) |
|
| |
One of the problems with patents was that a lot of them featured CRTs but few featured cats. Early OCR would look at the text for tubes and find moggies instead. Hence the black list to catch these commonly misguessed words. |
|
| |
[zen_tom]'s suggestion is exactly what I need. Alright, since the rest of the community has thrashed this idea I'll delete it 3 days from now. |
|
| |
There's spellcheck, and then there's autocorrect. The latter,
I agree, is the Devil's work, but the former, done right, is a
supplement to, not a substitute for human intelligence.
Recall
that human proofreaders' trick of reading backwards, in order
to be as context-blind as spellcheck naturally is. |
|
| |
(Spell check just caught a double "the" for me, there.) |
|
| |
//since... community... thrashed... delete... // I don't see any reason to delete anything based on the comments here - your idea is fine, and where there is negativity, it's directed at the "spellcheck" concept in general (as well as existing implementations of it) and not necessarily your idea. Sometimes people seem to confuse negativity linked to an idea's topic with negativity directed at the idea itself. I got roundly put in my place the other day when I expressed an opinion on an idea's topic (rather than specifically on the idea itself) which the author took as a personal attack against them and their idea. I suppose it can just be tricky to separate the two sometimes. |
|
| |
No need to duck, MikeD. Excessive pedantry, whilst being a fun stick to beat people with, isn't really helpful to anyone.
I feel the urge to expand on my original point though. Even though nearly everyone knows that spellcheckers are rubbish, they have become a substitute for re-reading and reviewing your work.
Actually, no that's not quite right. They have become an excuse for not re-reading and reviewing your work. This is a bad thing. Hence my fishbone for the idea as it is seeking to remove a minor annoyance of spellcheckers, and thus give the illusion that they are alright to use, whilst failing to address the main problem. The main problem being that spellcheckers suck! |
|
| |
//Excessive pedantry, whilst being a fun stick to beat people with// |
|
| |
I believe the cause to be genetic, as opposed to social, as my grandmother was of English descent ... and pedantic. |
|
| |
//They have become an excuse for not re-reading and reviewing your work// |
|
| |
//...spellcheckers... give the illusion that they are alright to use...// |
|
| |
[DrBob], would use of a BetterSpellCheck on your last annotation have exposed that the common one-word informal spelling and usage of the word "alright" is generally considered incorrect? The phrase "all right" is properly used in more formal, edited writing. |
|
| |
the best part of spell check is to type in someone's name and see the funny returns it gives! |
|
| |
//"alright" is generally considered incorrect//
Not in my neighbourhood it ain't! |
|
| |
//"alright" is generally considered incorrect// This is the
sort of thing that gives prescriptivism a bad name. |
|
| |
[DrBob] //excuse for not re-reading and reviewing your
work// I don't think spellcheck deserves the whole, or
even the major part of the blame, here. Much of what I
read has clearly not been proofread for *content.* There's
a network effect: when I put effort into writing
something carefully, I'm frequently disappointed in how
carelessly it's read. So why bother writing carefully? |
|
| |
//This is the sort of thing that gives prescriptivism a bad name.// Then let me put this another way: The use of "alright" is not all right. "Alright" is not a word. |
|
| |
Ooh, well know you've gone just a step too far, jurist! I call on the unholy might of the dictionary to smight you! (linky) ;o)
//So why bother writing carefully?//
Because a craftsman should take pride in their work, mouseposture. Even though it's unappreciated by the unwashed heathens that surround them.
Which reminds me. Have you checked that link yet jurist? |
|
| |
"smight"! (Just caught that one, Doc! Ha!;-) |
|
| |
Erm, you do realize that this is mostly in jest, [21], don't you? [DrBob] has always been one of the best communicators around the œbakery (at least for the 9 years I've had the pleasure of his acquaintance), and so I was merely having some fun in pulling his unholy trident tail. |
|
| |
[DrBob] Unfortunately, when your time's valuable, you can
get fired for wasting it on craftsmanship. My personal
Damocletian sword. |
|
| |
//"smight"! (Just caught that one, Doc! Ha!;-)//
Alright then. We'll call it a draw! |
|
| |
TechCrunch posted this email snippet from Steve Jobs- "Folks who want porn can buy and [sic] Android phone." link: http://tcrn.ch/aK3GHt |
|
| |
I bet Steve hates typos and would have gladly paid $50 for a spell checker that let him know he often misspells "an" as "and". I do too. |
|
| |